[RustyNut]

Originally Posted by dolanbaker

Trucks do 100 on the motorways (regardless of what the law says).

Variable speed limits are exactly that, variable!

What I am referring to (and you are deliberately ignoring) are drivers who dawdle along causing unnecessary pinch points along a busy motorway.

Very few trucks do 100 these days. They are limited to 85 or 90 kph and a lot of the bigger companies are pushing drivers to stick to the 80k limit due to fuel prices.

I fail to see why you think I or anyone else should have to drive at a speed that suits you, if I'm out for an afternoon spin and want to pootle down to cork at 70 or 80 or whatever speed I fancy so long as its legal why shouldn't I ? Can you not just overtake and get on with your life, if someone is driving slowly there is probably a good reason for it.

[dolanbaker]

Originally Posted by RustyNut

Very few trucks do 100 these days. They are limited to 85 or 90 kph and a lot of the bigger companies are pushing drivers to stick to the 80k limit due to fuel prices.

I fail to see why you think I or anyone else should have to drive at a speed that suits you, if I'm out for an afternoon spin and want to pootle down to cork at 70 or 80 or whatever speed I fancy so long as its legal why shouldn't I ? Can you not just overtake and get on with your life, if someone is driving slowly there is probably a good reason for it.

You can do what you like, just don't be disappointed if you get hooted out of it by other motorists. I shall repeat the point, it is dawdling in rush hour traffic that is dangerous.

[RustyNut]

Originally Posted by dolanbaker

You can do what you like, just don't be disappointed if you get hooted out of it by other motorists. I shall repeat the point, it is dawdling in rush hour traffic that is dangerous.

I was being a bit pedantic earlier but can you seriously explain how someone driving below the speed limit on a motorway is dangerous.
If the traffic is heavy it will slow down naturally if its not so heavy then you can overtake in the overtaking lane.
The only way a slow vehicle is a danger to other traffic is if the other traffic fails to see it Which is not the fault of the slow driver.

[antoobrien]

Originally Posted by RustyNut

I was being a bit pedantic earlier but can you seriously explain how someone driving below the speed limit on a motorway is dangerous.

Forcing other motorists to slow down on a motorway, for no good reason other than you want to dawdle at 70km/h, is against the rules of the road.

Keeping pace with other traffic

As a driver, you must always be aware of your speed and judge the appropriate speed for your vehicle, taking into account:

• driving conditions,
• other users of the road,
• current weather conditions,
• all possible hazards,
• and speed limits

.

Driving conditions relate to the volume of traffic around you and the quality of the road.

Motorway driving

You must progress at a speed and in a way that avoids interference with other motorway traffic.

[antoobrien]

Originally Posted by The Nutty M

Peoples interpretation of the laws are good to read,ie there is a minimum speed limit on motorways,no tractors are allowed on the motorway

There is an implied lower limit of 50km/h, see the ROTR

The sign on the left shows that the following must not enter a motorway:

• people who do not hold a full driving licence for the category of vehicle they drive,
• vehicles incapable of a speed of at least 50 km/h,
• vehicles with an engine capacity of 50cc. or less,
• people driving on "L" plates,
• invalid-carriages,
• vehicles that do not use inflated tyres,
• cyclists,
• pedestrians,
• and animals.

If the vehicle is incapable of doing & 50km/h it can't enter the motorway, that implies that the lowest driving speed is 50km/h. Besides driving at 50km/h in normal road conditions is dangerous.

The no tractors bit comes from the fact that, until recently, all tractors were sold with governors to prevent them from doing above 50km/h. Throw in the fact that very few were taxed as anything but works vehicles (meaning they're not supposed to be used on public roads except where necessary to get to land) this is an easy assumption to make.

[source]

Originally Posted by RustyNut

I was being a bit pedantic earlier but can you seriously explain how someone driving below the speed limit on a motorway is dangerous.
If the traffic is heavy it will slow down naturally if its not so heavy then you can overtake in the overtaking lane.
The only way a slow vehicle is a danger to other traffic is if the other traffic fails to see it Which is not the fault of the slow driver.

I've often seen dangerous build up of traffic on motorways, simply because of a slow moving car. You'll often have Granny or Granda in their micra doing about 70/80kph on the motorway, a truck will go to overtake them, unable to do so with enough pace so will be slowly chugging along beside the car, that makes granny slow down even more, and vehicles behind her have to hit the breaks suddenly. There's then the scramble of drivers trying to get into the overtaking lane trying to get past granny, and are now stuck behind the slow moving truck. The truck eventually pulls in and the cars have to get back up to speed to get past the truck.

The build up can happen in a matter of 40-50 seconds, as all the fast moving traffic on the road have to slow down considerably because of 1 slow moving driver.

I've seen this a number of times, and on the motorway it's something that can cause a serious accident in almost no time at all.

[nacimroc]

I think you all may be missing the point. The problem is that idiotic word "Capable"! A vehicle capable of doing a speed is not the same as the vehicle actually doing it. This is the problem with tractors. Before you blame other road users, remember they are doing 100 feet every second, so don't expect every single person in the country to be driving eyes glued open for split second reactions before 1 guy causes them to be in a high speed crash! Get the guy off the road and problem solved! Minimum speed on motorways (with no traffic ahead) of 70 kph and problem solved!

Tractors are not built for motorways and should be banned off it completely and they are absolutely and unquestionably a danger regardless of whose fault it is! If you remove them the danger is gone!

[JupiterKid]

I saw a middle aged woman cycling on the M3 on Tuesday. She was totally oblivious to the fact that she was doing something dangerous and illegal.

[galwaycyclist]

Originally Posted by JupiterKid

I saw a middle aged woman cycling on the M3 on Tuesday. She was totally oblivious to the fact that she was doing something dangerous and illegal.

With respect you don't know anything about what she is oblivious to. For all you know her normal route may have been bisected by the motorway without any thought given to what she was supposed to do. If that is the case, then with respect, the primary negligence lies with the roads authority not with the lady on the bike.

As I drive our motorways I frequently see parallel tracks that were clearly provided to give agricultural vehicles access within certain lands. These are often extensive. These could have been linked up and used to provide a parallel resource for cyclists and walkers - they were being constructed anyway.

[npr240]

Originally Posted by galwaycyclist

With respect you don't know anything about what she is oblivious to. For all you know her normal route may have been bisected by the motorway without any thought given to what she was supposed to do. If that is the case, then with respect, the primary negligence lies with the roads authority not with the lady on the bike.

As I drive our motorways I frequently see parallel tracks that were clearly provided to give agricultural vehicles access within certain lands. These are often extensive. These could have been linked up and used to provide a parallel resource for cyclists and walkers - they were being constructed anyway.

It's still illegal to cycle on a motorway regardless of the alleged 'negligence' on the part of the roads authority. Are you saying law breaking is justified because there has been a failure to provide for safe cycling in rural areas?

[nacimroc]

Originally Posted by galwaycyclist

With respect you don't know anything about what she is oblivious to. For all you know her normal route may have been bisected by the motorway without any thought given to what she was supposed to do. If that is the case, then with respect, the primary negligence lies with the roads authority not with the lady on the bike.

Complete BS! Its illegal for her to be there! End of! No argument, no blaming other people! She should 100% be nowhere near that road! Its this ignorance to road safety and rules that's led to 50 pages of people trying to tell Irish people to cop on! They even made the NO in capitals for you!! This sign is on every single entrance to every motorway in Ireland, yet people ignore it and then argue against it! Madness!

[etchyed]

Originally Posted by galwaycyclist

With respect you don't know anything about what she is oblivious to.

Yes indeed, perhaps she is aware that she shouldn't be on the motorway, and is simply pig-ignorantly ignoring the rules as she'll probably get away with it.

For all you know her normal route may have been bisected by the motorway without any thought given to what she was supposed to do.

There is not one place along the route of the M3 where a road has been bisected without an adjacent road with a bridge in very close proximity. On the 50km-long M3 there are no fewer than 30 bridges. Every single piddling little local road has had its own bridge built. Farmers with land on either side have had their own tunnels built underneath the road.

This woman has clearly decided that it's more convenient for her to cycle on the motorway even though her old route is still there. Well she's not allowed. Tough shít.

If that is the case...

And how on earth could it be? If the NRA had somehow conspired to cut a lady's home off from the rest of the road network, it would cause national outrage.

...then with respect, the primary negligence lies with the roads authority not with the lady on the bike.

Cycling on a motorway puts the cyclist and motorists in danger. It is an extremely negligent thing to do and no amount of excuse-making removes the responsibility from the cyclist.

As I drive our motorways I frequently see parallel tracks that were clearly provided to give agricultural vehicles access within certain lands. These are often extensive. These could have been linked up and used to provide a parallel resource for cyclists and walkers - they were being constructed anyway.

You seem to have entirely missed the point of motorways, which is to provide efficient, long distance routes for car journeys. This removes cars from the rest of the road network, making it safer for other road users. Why would a cyclist wish to travel along beside a motorway? They would have nothing to cycle to. By its very nature, a motorway has no amenities along its route and its exits are a distance away from towns.

This forum sometimes irritates me as too many of its members are pro-motoring zealots who fail to see why anyone would travel by any means other than a car. But let's be clear - that's not why everyone is shooting you down. It's because your post is idiotic. You're living up beautifully to the stereotype of the ignorant, militant, self-righteous cyclist who thinks themselves above the rules of the road.

[JupiterKid]

Originally Posted by galwaycyclist

With respect you don't know anything about what she is oblivious to. For all you know her normal route may have been bisected by the motorway without any thought given to what she was supposed to do. If that is the case, then with respect, the primary negligence lies with the roads authority not with the lady on the bike.

As I drive our motorways I frequently see parallel tracks that were clearly provided to give agricultural vehicles access within certain lands. These are often extensive. These could have been linked up and used to provide a parallel resource for cyclists and walkers - they were being constructed anyway.

There is a very good reason why cyclists and other types of vehicles cannot use a motorway - there are plenty of alternative routes that this woman could have taken on her bicycle. Motorways are restricted to cars, lorries and fast motorcycles to segregate them from general purpose roads to make long distance travelling safer and faster. That is the whole point of motorways.

I would guess that this cyclist just wasn't aware of the fact that she should not be using a motorway rather than knowing what she was doing was illegal but still doing it anyway. There are plenty of road users who fall into the latter category.

[galwaycyclist]

Originally Posted by npr240

It's still illegal to cycle on a motorway regardless of the alleged 'negligence' on the part of the roads authority. Are you saying law breaking is justified because there has been a failure to provide for safe cycling in rural areas?

Nobody has said law breaking is justified what is being explored is why a middle lady find herself doing something that is illegal. I postulated a situation where, in my view, the primary negligence would lie with another party the implication being that I accept that negligence could be argued for both sides.

[galwaycyclist]

Originally Posted by nacimroc

Complete BS! Its illegal for her to be there! End of! No argument, no blaming other people! She should 100% be nowhere near that road! Its this ignorance to road safety and rules that's led to 50 pages of people trying to tell Irish people to cop on! They even made the NO in capitals for you!! This sign is on every single entrance to every motorway in Ireland, yet people ignore it and then argue against it! Madness!

I once had a situation where, while cycling through county Kildare I asked two members of the Garda for directions. They gave me directions, which I followed. The first intimation I had that there might be a problem with those directions was when I came accross the sign above. I believe I had to turn around and retrace my route several kilometres to find a way around. However, I had a certain level of fitness - somebody else might not have bothered.

Guards or no guards, if the first intimation a cyclist gets that they are on the wrong road is the sign above then to be frank that is not good enough. In Germany if I read a road sign for a route it will tell me well in advance if it implies an Autobahn - alternative routes will be clearly indicated. Is that the case in this country? Is it the case that a cyclist coming to the sign above will always have been made aware of alternative routes? If the answer is "no" then a proportion of cyclists will keep going - that is human nature. Again those responsible for signing our roads bear a contributory responsibility.